Posted: Thursday, October 9, 2008 12:00 am
If America had more sense in this regard, it would ban presidential television debates.
Performances like the one Tuesday night between Obama and McCain do not, obviously, persuade supporters of either candidate to change their mind and back the other one. The only thing the candidates can hope, unlikely as it is, is that they will influence voters who are undecided.
How would the debates help the undecided? With visual and other clues. As a story in Wednesday's paper reported, one important element in debate performance is appearance and body language.
The report centered on what the candidates wore, the color of their neckties, their gestures, how they sat or moved around on stage, and how much emotion they showed.
If these are the factors that influence some of those undecided, what a way to make a choice!
Running the executive branch has little to do with the color of your tie, how well you perform on stage or how quickly you answer a question.
What counts in a successful administration is the way the president and his advisers deliberate and how they anticipate and respond to problems, not how quickly or coherently they answer on national TV - especially to existential questions such as "What don't you know and when will you learn it?"
As viewers noticed Tuesday night, debates are a poor forum for candidates to express their policy differences. There is not enough time.
One man says the other would do this and that. The other responds that the assertion is wrong. The only way to settle it is to stay on the topic for a while, and to bring in evidence to back up the claims on both sides. A debate format does not allow for this, so viewers are no better off in the knowledge department than they were before.
These are the reasons why a wise country, while not perhaps actually banning debates, would not insist that the top candidates perform again on live TV. (hh)